More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What does that mean? Does that mean women can indeed wear that which pertains to a man, and that men can indeed wear a woman's garment? Is that what you are saying?

I believe that the principle is a good one. But a legalistic approach that would condemn kilts as skirts is misguided. There is some cultural leeway to consider. The Gospel isn't designed to turn us into ancient Israel. I'm not Jewish, never will be. I'm Scottish and I'm an American in 2017, this principle can be applied culturally. For example, I wouldn't wear a dress or ladies jeans, they pertain to a woman. You innately know that too, and so you'd condemn ladies jeans on a man. Surely, you wouldn't approve.

Who decides what pertains to a man or a woman? They now make rompers for men, called a "romphim". They also make pantyhose for men now, dresses and nightgowns even, all for men.

Are those things that "pertain to a man"?

Hey, George Washington wore hosiery, watch it pal. Lol

In fact, hosiery was originally a male article of clothing as it pertains to outer wear. Notice, now your position is defined by culture as you know it. Ultimately culture is the primary lens by which we define propriety. And yes, hosiery on men might make a comeback. Weird, but true.

If surrounding culture alone dictates these things, how can culture ever be wrong? Can it? Is culture always right?

No matter what turn culture makes, we can apply unchanging principle. Men's hosiery might make a comeback, but men wearing ladies hosiery will still be improper.

Have you tried telling the trans crowd "men don't wear ladies jeans because they know they belong to a woman"? There is a whole generation being taught (by liberal democrats) that NOTHING "belongs" to any gender, gender is a social construct developed by evil white Christian men to keep everyone enslaved. What message do you have for these people?

I assure you, styles might be similar, but both male and female styles of attire will also remain distinct.